Representing Judicial Argumentation in the Semantic Web

This paper presents part of a Semantic Web framework for precedent modelling. The research applies theoretical models of legal knowledge representation and rule interchange for applications in the legal domain to a set of real legal documents. The aim is to represent the legal concepts and the argumentation patterns contained in a judgement, as expressed by the judicial text. The bases of the framework are a set of metadata associated with judicial concepts and an ontology library, providing a solid ground for an argumentation system based on defeasible rules. The present paper shortly presents the metadata and ontology layers, focusing on the rules and argumentation layers. In the example provided an application of the Carneades Argumentation System the framework reconstructs the legal interpretations performed by the judge in a specific judicial decision, presenting its reasoning path, and suggesting possible different interpretations in the light of relevant code- and case-law.

[1]  Thomas Eiter,et al.  Realizing Default Logic over Description Logic Knowledge Bases , 2009, ECSQARU.

[2]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Formalising ordinary legal disputes: a case study , 2008, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[3]  Douglas Walton,et al.  The New Dialectic: Conversational Contexts of Argument , 1998 .

[4]  Andrew S. Merrill,et al.  A design for reasoning with policies, precedents, and rationales , 1993, ICAIL '93.

[5]  Guido Governatori,et al.  Rules and Norms: Requirements for Rule Interchange Languages in the Legal Domain , 2009, RuleML.

[6]  Thomas F. Gordon,et al.  Constructing Legal Arguments with Rules in the Legal Knowledge Interchange Format (LKIF) , 2008, Computable Models of the Law, Languages, Dialogues, Games, Ontologies.

[7]  Phan Minh Dung,et al.  On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Logic Programming and n-Person Games , 1995, Artif. Intell..

[8]  Monica Palmirani,et al.  Ontology Framework for Judgment Modelling , 2011, AICOL.

[9]  Guido Governatori,et al.  A modal and deontic defeasible reasoning system for modelling policies and multi-agent systems , 2009, Expert Syst. Appl..

[10]  Giuseppe Contissa,et al.  Fill the Gap in the Legal Knowledge Modelling , 2009, RuleML.

[11]  Marcello Ceci.  Interpreting Judgements using Knowledge Representation Methods and Computational Models of Argument , 2013 .

[12]  Douglas Walton,et al.  Legal reasoning with argumentation schemes , 2009, ICAIL.

[13]  Guido Governatori,et al.  Rule Interchange and Applications, International Symposium, RuleML 2009, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA, November 5-7, 2009. Proceedings , 2009, RuleML.

[14]  Kevin D. Ashley,et al.  Case-based reasoning and law , 2005, The Knowledge Engineering Review.

[15]  Thomas F. Gordon.  Visualizing Carneades argument graphs , 2007 .

[16]  Guido Boella,et al.  A Logical Understanding of Legal Interpretation , 2010, KR.

[17]  Marcello Ceci,et al.  Browsing Case-law: an Application of the Carneades Argumentation System , 2012, RuleML.

[18]  E. Morgan,et al.  The Principles of Judicial Proof , 1931 .

[19]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Argument-Based Extended Logic Programming with Defeasible Priorities , 1997, J. Appl. Non Class. Logics.

[20]  Thomas F. Gordon,et al.  Combining Rules and Ontologies with Carneades , 2011, RuleML America.

[21]  Guido Governatori,et al.  Defeasible Logic: Agency, Intention and Obligation , 2004, DEON.

[22]  Michael Clarke,et al.  Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning and Uncertainty , 1991, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[23]  Rinke Hoekstra,et al.  The LKIF Core Ontology of Basic Legal Concepts , 2007, LOAIT.

[24]  Guido Boella,et al.  Lex Minus Dixit Quam Voluit, Lex Magis Dixit Quam Voluit: A Formal Study on Legal Compliance and Interpretation , 2009, AICOL Workshops.

[25]  Pompeu Casanovas,et al.  Computable Models of the Law, Languages, Dialogues, Games, Ontologies , 2008, Computable Models of the Law, Languages, Dialogues, Games, Ontologies.

[26]  Pompeu Casanovas,et al.  AI Approaches to the Complexity of Legal Systems , 2015, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[27]  Kevin D. Ashley.  Modeling legal argument - reasoning with cases and hypotheticals , 1991, Artificial intelligence and legal reasoning.

[28]  Guido Governatori,et al.  A Modal Defeasible Reasoner of Deontic Logic for the Semantic Web , 2011, Int. J. Semantic Web Inf. Syst..

[29]  Douglas Walton,et al.  The Carneades Argumentation Framework - Using Presumptions and Exceptions to Model Critical Questions , 2006, COMMA.

[30]  Guido Governatori,et al.  The Making of SPINdle , 2009, RuleML.